COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 25, 2014 2:00-4:00 p.m.
Hill Hall 300
ATTENDEES: Dan Knauss (President), Corby Anderson (MME), Jürgen Brune (MN), Graham Davis (EB),
Jason Ganley (CBE), Ben Goertz (GSA), Uwe Greife (PH), Patrick Marshall (USG), Dinesh Mehta (EECS),
Thomas Monecke (GE), Ken Osgood (MB), Kamini Singha (HS)
APOLOGIES:
GUESTS: Terry Parker (Provost), Tom Boyd (AP), Bruce Honeyman (RTT), Lauren Schumacher (USG),
Tyrel Jacobsen (USG)
Visitor updates and minutes
Provost – Terry Parker
AA received a one-time first quarter budget adjustment of $500,000. There are possibilities of a 2nd
quarter adjustment. The money was allocated: 90% TA, 10% Student Hourly. These percentages
were a guideline but the Deans had the final word on this and should provide additional support for
the spring semester. Budget discussions have already started and the distribution will be based on
priority levels. We do not know at this point what kind of flexibility we will have. Knauss asked what
the source of funds was for the budget adjustment. Parker responded that it came from a higher
student enrollment and faculty savings from failed searches. The use of the budget adjustment for
TAs is appropriate given the source of the funds. There have been conversations with the Deans to
understand where the larger needs are. There are ongoing discussions with the senate on
communication between senate executive committee and AA to help promote change on campus in
some needed areas.
Approval of past minutes
Approved with no objections.
Approval of graduate student graduation list
Approved unanimously.
Discussion with Student Government: Student government representatives attended because they
heard of dissatisfaction from senate with the online evaluations. The student government
representatives asked the senate for clarification in how are the problems different in paper
evaluations compared to the online evaluations. A discussion ensued pointing out the issues that
have previously been discussed in Senate. These issues included participation rates, the problems
with Blackboard generating the list of students in the course, the possibility of evaluation from
people not enrolled in the course, students can evaluate faculty that are not their instructors, the
Page 2
open time-frame for conducting the evaluations is markedly different from evaluations on a single
day, a lack of comparison between the online evaluations and the paper evaluations, there was a
pilot in terms of rollout of the evaluation system but no pilot in terms of analysis or comparison of
the results. Further discussion focused on the fact that the student evaluations of teaching are an
important piece of data that are used in annual evaluations and promotion and tenure for faculty. It
is terribly important that the data is accurate and reliable. The Senate is concerned about bad data
being used in important decisions and seeks to make sure the problem is realized, addressed in
current evaluations, and corrected.
The student government representatives also asked why the policy has changed that failed classes
are now averaged for GPA calculation with the retaken class, and the student is not given the new
grade for GPA. This is a return to previous policy. There was a problem that students would just
keep taking classes trying to pass a course or get a better grade point average.
Updates since last meeting
Campus Climate meetings with administration – Dan Knauss: Meetings have been progressing
between the Senate Executive Committee and members of the administration to discuss the campus
climate and to improve communication. A number of issues have been presented and discussed.
Campus committees and regular responsibilities
Undergrad council – Jason Ganley
Next meeting will be December 10th.
Grad council – Jürgen Brune
Nothing to report. Graduate Council will meet on December 2nd.
Research council – Uwe Greife
There was some discussion about first-year graduate (Poate) fellowships including the following:
increase the amount to $10,000 a semester. The model of distribution of fellowships within CASE
worked well in Physics but not in CBE. All the colleges get a certain number of fellowships. There
was some discussion about cost share by industry. Expect some report about this soon.
Faculty Handbook Committee – Graham Davis
The Faculty Handbook is moving through several recommendations. Some items will end up in the
procedures manual. Teaching faculty credit hours are now at 9 credit hours per semester plus
service. One issue for consideration by Senate is whether the University Emeritus title should be
available to Teaching Faculty. Currently, Teaching Faculty can be Emeritus but cannot earn the title
of University Emeritus.
There was a motion and second recommending to the Handbook Committee that the title of
University Emeritus Professor be available to Teaching Faculty.
The motion passed.
Brief report on any other committees
Page 3
Budget committee, Greife gave a report on the status of the campus budget. Unrestricted funds are
at $104 million, consisting of $42 million in designated and $63 million in undesignated. Reserves for
the beginning of FY15 were at approx. $17 million. Petroleum Institute money has stayed untouched
for a while (~$14 million). Total reserves are at $53 million. Some of the reserve will be used for
capital construction projects (CoorsTek, GRL Annex, etc.) $208 million in debt. We are trying to
reduce debt by $4.8 M. We are taking out of reserves to do the investment. From the spending
point of view we do not have a lot of money we have additional debt. On debt we are committed for
the next 25 years. Total debt payments for FY15 are 18.8 million.
Major topics of discussion
Ken Osgood presented a proposed senate action plan. Some additional possible actions are not
here but we may want to add them or there may be others we can look at next year.
PROPOSED SENATE ACTION PLAN
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS
1. Procedures for searches for academic leadership.
Goal: Provide meaningful faculty input into selection of leadership that governs the
academic mission of the university.
Actions:
Develop proposed language for MOU and Handbook.
Deadlines:
Draft language: January 13
Considerations:
•
•
•
Which searches should faculty have a voice in: Provost, Vice President for
Research, College Deans, Graduate Dean, DHDDs
What about associate provost or assistant DHDDs? Mechanism for input on
departmental level?
Provision for interim leadership
2. Re-instate Faculty Review of Academic Leadership
Page 4
Goal: Enhance accountability and input by providing faculty mechanism for evaluating
their leadership, and for flagging areas of strength or concern early to guide action.
Actions:
Senate resolution calling for regular surveys.
Proposed language change to bylaws.
Draft survey for spring.
Deadlines:
Draft bylaws language: January 13
Draft survey: February 11
Considerations:
•
Discuss and vote on possible Senate resolution:
“The Faculty Senate recommends that the Senate administer two surveys of the
faculty during the spring semester on alternating years: a Faculty Climate Survey
on even numbered years, and an Academic Leadership Survey [review of
administration] on odd numbered years. The Senate should begin preparations for
the leadership survey for Spring 2015. The Senate also proposes amending the
Senate bylaws to make this a permanent feature of faculty governance. Proposed
language changes to bylaws will be put forward in time for a spring faculty forum
on faculty governance.”
•
Charge subcommittee with recommending language change for bylaws, specifying
conditions under which surveys will be administered; seek input of Assessment
office.
DISCOVERY ACTIONS
3. Investigate chair model
Goal:
Faculty input on departmental/program leadership; strengthen position of DHDDs as
faculty advocates.
Actions:
Develop plan & schedule for campus-wide discussion
i. Create subcommittee to launch discovery phase
ii. Meetings with deans, chairs & townhall meetings: February
Identify issues for discussion/solution, e.g.:
i. Fixed term, renewable?
ii. When external searches?
Page 5
iii. Need enough faculty to fill slots in each Dept
iv. Transition phase for existing DHDDs, filled when vacated
Develop proposed plan.
Deadlines:
Schedule for campus-wide discussions by January 28
Email announcement of townhalls by February 1
Meeting with admin, DHs: Feb-March
Proposed plan: April 8
ACTIONS TO RECOMMEND OR DELEGATE:
4. Faculty Trustee voting rights
a. Sound-out BOT (Dan)
b. Request faculty trustees (Dorgan, Tissa, and new rep) write letter to BOT, state rep +
governor
c. Formal Senate resolution endorsing memo
d. Deadline: February 15
5. Course release for Senate leadership
a. Request past-presidents write memo requesting course release and/or summer salary
(Carr, Spear, Eberhart)
b. Formal Senate resolution endorsing memo
c. Deadline: February 15
6. Ombuds
a. In hands of Admin. Senate input as it develops
ACTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
7. Handbook Review
a. Review delegation of authority between provost, deans, and faculty
b. Identify issues for HB committee conversation
Page 6
c. Subcommittee for propose language:
d. Deadline for proposed language:
8. Budget process
a. Faculty participation into resource allocation at college level and at university level,
looking for meaningful mechanisms
9. Senate internal reforms
a. Delegating more power to Councils
b. More representative composition (1 member from each dept)
c. Reduce committee
d. Improve Senate communications with faculty
e. Distribute leadership burden
f. Improve efficiency of decision-making
Regarding the above list
Item number 3, Investigating chair model: there is not a consensus on campus that this is
needed/wanted, but this is a proposal that has been brought up a number of times. There needs
to be a conversation on campus before moving anywhere on this. In some departments the
faculty may not want to do it or have the faculty to do it. The issue needs further discussion and
it was agreed to table it and bring it up again next year.
Item number 4, Faculty Trustee voting rights: the Senate wants to explore the possibility of
voting rights for the Faculty Trustee. It was brought up that the voting rights are defined by
statute. The expansion of voting rights to the faculty trustee would require legislative action.
The issue will be explored.
Item number 5, Course release for Senate Leadership: The Senate would like to request some
kind of compensation for Senate leadership. There needs to be recognition of the effort involved
in Senate leadership so that the Senate is a sustainable body. There needs to be some
combination of teaching relief, TA support, and/or compensation. Senate leadership previously
received salary compensation and course relief but that ended at some point in the past. The
Senate should have control over its budget.
Item number 1, Procedures for searches for academic leadership: The Senate wants real
searches for the higher positions not just appointments. There is concern about not having a
search committee for all appointments. Much of how searches are conducted is in both the
Handbook and the procedures manual.
Page 7
Thomas Monecke and Jürgen Brüne will develop a Senate proposal for changes to the handbook
language.
Vote: All in favor.
Item number 2, Re-instate Faculty Review of Academic Leadership: Discussion ensued regarding
surveys or evaluation of administrators. There are many benefits to performing a regular survey
of leadership. We would like to move forward and start the review of administrators this spring.
It is important to announce it to the faculty. We could amend the Senate bylaws to regularize
the conduction of surveys if this was to be administered by Senate. We would want the Senate
to be able modify the questions as necessary. We need to determine who the faculty would
evaluate. Department heads should be evaluated along with other leadership. We should
include involvement from the administration. Kay Schneider would be valuable to have input.
The survey might have more credibility and higher response rate if it were administered by
senate rather than by AA, but that is more work for us. Knauss and Mehta will work on changing
the bylaws and check information or surveys from other schools if we want to make changes to
the Senate Bylaws. The privacy of the faculty must be maintained in the surveys.
As a separate issue Ken Osgood paid for the climate survey out of personal funds. We should
reimburse him and we need to be able to have control of a senate budget to conduct surveys.
Osgood and Singha will work on researching and drafting the first survey for circulation.
There is a need to be careful with the open-ended responses so the answer does not show who
the responder is. There may be a question of use of University time and money to do a survey
unless it is sanctioned by the administration. If you make it public you need to have permission.
Items 7 through 9 were briefly discussed. Item 7, Handbook Review, focused on the delegation
of authority and defining what is the power of the Deans. Most things currently in the Handbook
are controlled at the Provost level and there is the “Dean” word periodically. If the Deans have
been delegated certain authorities and responsibilities, the Handbook should define what those
responsibilities are.
Regarding Senate recommendations from last year
Teaching peer evaluation and mentorship – ad hoc committee – Ken Osgood (5 min)
A faculty group has organized, led by Yvette Kuiper, to develop a peer evaluation system that
provides supplementary evaluation data plus mentorship opportunities. The Senate would like
to endorse this group with the following members who have shown interest: Graham Davis
(Senator; past chair on Senate committee on evaluation, Professor, Economics and Business),
Tom Boyd (Associate Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies),Kay Schneider (Director of
Assessment; Undergraduate Council), Susan Reynolds (Assistant Department Head and Teaching
Associate, Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering), Tracy Gardner
(Teaching Associate Professor, Chemical and Biological, Engineering), Vhibuti Dave (Teaching
Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer, Science; Undergraduate Council), Becky
Lafrancois (Teaching Associate Professor, Economics and Business;, Undergraduate Council), Lia
Page 8
Vella (Instruction and Research Services Librarian; Arthur Lakes, Library; Undergraduate
Council), Terry Young (Professor and Department Head, Geophysics and Geophysical,
Engineering), Scott Strong (Teaching Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies, Applied
Math and Statistics; Undergraduate Council).
A motion was made and seconded to endorse the committee as an Adhoc Committee of the
Senate
All voted yes.
Senate schedule for remainder of semester: The Senate agreed that this would be the last meeting of
the Faculty Senate for the Fall semester because of the timing of the break. The next Senate meeting
will be January 13th 2015.